20 replies to this topic

[brokenportal]

Vote and comment to help this question about the War on Aging make it to the desks of more politicians.

http://questions.sci...-a-war-on-aging

The more we can get it to incubate in more of their heads, the easier it will be for this cause to transfer to more political platforms as the information continues to spread and cause successes continue to grow in frequency and size.

This entry is already in second place in the health category. Just a bit more team work here and this could really turn into a nice score for the cause.

Edited by brokenportal, 11 May 2012 - 09:38 PM.

[The Immortalist]

I voted.

[Droplet]

I voted too even though I'm in UK.

[Dorian Grey]

The global population was less than 4 billion when I was born... Looks to be over 8 bil by the time I pass.

The last of the easy access oil will be gone in the lifetime of a child born today. There are only half a billion cars on the road today, but China and India are Americanizing as fast as they can.

Getting the 78 million baby-boomers through their end of life medical expenses is well on track to break the back of America in the next few decades.

If we're all going to live to 120 and beyond, we've got a lot of work to do on where to put all the people and what they can do to stay productive.

There's a great day a comin' and it looks like it's going to be a fine mess. I'd like to stick around a few more decades, but I fear it will be no world for oldsters before too much longer.

Perhaps the friendly folks at VHEMT have a better idea? http://www.vhemt.org/

[Droplet]

I don't believe in us making ourselves extinct but perhaps breeding less would be a good idea. I have opted myself out of the gene pool largely because there are enough unloved kids in this world who will turn into messed up adults. I don't like children and don't even feel maternal if they're related to me so I got sterilised. However, I understand that for some people, the wish for a child is very powerful. I do think that people should be encouraged to adopt more and for it to be made easier without compromising the child's safety.

Personally, I find the idea of us living beyond 120 a very exciting prospect and maybe if we knew we were stuck here a long time, we'd actually be bothered to think more about the state of our home planet. Seriously, the amount of people I meet who say "I'm not bothered about the planet because I'll be dead by then" is huge!

Edited by Droplet, 08 May 2012 - 06:01 AM.

[brokenportal]

The global population was less than 4 billion when I was born... Looks to be over 8 bil by the time I pass.

The last of the easy access oil will be gone in the lifetime of a child born today. There are only half a billion cars on the road today, but China and India are Americanizing as fast as they can.

Getting the 78 million baby-boomers through their end of life medical expenses is well on track to break the back of America in the next few decades.

If we're all going to live to 120 and beyond, we've got a lot of work to do on where to put all the people and what they can do to stay productive.

There's a great day a comin' and it looks like it's going to be a fine mess. I'd like to stick around a few more decades, but I fear it will be no world for oldsters before too much longer.

Perhaps the friendly folks at VHEMT have a better idea? http://www.vhemt.org/

I can see those words coming from an old man standing by a fence with a corn cob pipe when the transition from horses to cars was being made. I think I could hear words like that coming out of the mouth of an old man when they invented the book. They probably said something like, "Danged old kids, all they ever want to do is read now, they don't even want to hear more tales and legends anymore." That's a pessimist. Few things are good enough and most everything else is wrong. I was just saying in the last hour or two, in reference to elderly people, that, "Those are gurus, and heroes, and the architects of the dream world that they've created for hundreds of millions of people today."

I don't believe in us making ourselves extinct but perhaps breeding less would be a good idea. I have opted myself out of the gene pool largely because there are enough unloved kids in this world who will turn into messed up adults. I don't like children and don't even feel maternal if they're related to me so I got sterilised. However, I understand that for some people, the wish for a child is very powerful. I do think that people should be encouraged to adopt more and for it to be made easier without compromising the child's safety.

Personally, I find the idea of us living beyond 120 a very exciting prospect and maybe if we knew we were stuck here a long time, we'd actually be bothered to think more about the state of our home planet. Seriously, the amount of people I meet who say "I'm not bothered about the planet because I'll be dead by then" is huge!

Its ironic that the people we need the most replicas of are smart enough to produce the fewest average number of children. I think that some percent of the world between maybe 20% and 80% is going to hold off on taking these therapies for a long time for one reason or another, I just don't see mass-children-having becoming a thing of the past or of the fringe any time in the next many many hundred years. So when you meet people that tell you that indefinite life extension will be too risky because it will do things like halt evolution, tell them that we're looking at plenty of evolution continuing to go on in the biology of a lot of people as they work to combine their genes into a combo that will one day be able to grasp the basic concept of lets check the universe out more and not rot in a box for eternity if we don't have to.

And I think tihat's a good point that it seems that living longer will give people less of a reason to give up on things.

[brokenportal]

 science debate war on aging coalition to extend life washington big news.jpg   50.03KB   2 downloads

Vote for, “Should the United States fund a “War on Aging”?, at http://tinyurl.com/scidebatewaronaging

to help the war on aging reach the national stage again. At this stage in the growth of support every little thing is key. Now are we really going to let the cause miss this opportunity because we couldn’t get more than 408 votes?

[brokenportal]

It was down on the list for a while, and now it has more than double the votes of the old first place entry. Now we have an opportunity to make a statement here and let the war on aging entry really stand out. Vote, share it in facebook, get your friends to vote.

[Droplet]

Its ironic that the people we need the most replicas of are smart enough to produce the fewest average number of children. I think that some percent of the world between maybe 20% and 80% is going to hold off on taking these therapies for a long time for one reason or another, I just don't see mass-children-having becoming a thing of the past or of the fringe any time in the next many many hundred years. So when you meet people that tell you that indefinite life extension will be too risky because it will do things like halt evolution, tell them that we're looking at plenty of evolution continuing to go on in the biology of a lot of people as they work to combine their genes into a combo that will one day be able to grasp the basic concept of lets check the universe out more and not rot in a box for eternity if we don't have to.

And I think tihat's a good point that it seems that living longer will give people less of a reason to give up on things.

I have had it levelled at me in the past that "you are responsible so therefore should be having lots of children." Sometimes people mistake me for being smart and tell me that's why I should replicate. No guarantee that a) children you have will be responsible/smart or b) that they won't go away and join a completely deathist movement. I'm not the nurturing, girly and child-loving woman my parents who loved me wanted. They still love me but it goes to show that no matter what you do, there are no guarantees.

I think here in UK at least one of the big problems is that having lots of children can be seen as lucrative for those who have no ambition and/or don't want to go to work. I think there is nothing wrong with people having children who want to look after them/raise them properly but I can't stand people who just use them to get benefits.

Here's a great and funny film about only stupid people breeding:

[brokenportal]

Of course, I understand it, but it does seem ironic. The people that contribute the most to the world seem to reproduce least, and the people that contribute the least to the world seem to reproduce most. At first glances it seems that would, of course, cause the people who contribute the least to crowd out the percent of those that contribute the most. However, a twist in this plot has occurred to me, (and others? Im not sure) that perhaps there is a line in the human evolutionary sand that genes make it to where they are in tune with an understanding of a bettering of their condition. So maybe us that want to reproduce least aren't bound to die off, but rather to get indefinite life extension. In that way then its not us that die off, its the people who contribute least who, it seems, may still be trying to evolve combinations of genes to the point where those gene lines too will either die off or get in tune with an understanding of a bettering of their condition.

[niner]

Thanks for that Idiocracy post, Droplet. That movie is hilarious! Is the whole thing on youtube now? Wow. That's kinda surprising, if true.

I think there are some large mistaken ideas in this thread. In the world today, the poor and uneducated populations are the ones that have lots of kids. Everywhere on Earth that women have obtained a measure of education, money, and power, the birth rate has fallen dramatically. In much of the developed world, the birth rate has fallen below the replacement rate! When robust life extension comes around (if it hasn't already...) The kind of people who are likely to use it are the same ones that aren't reproducing enough anyway, so it looks like that isn't going to be a problem.

[Droplet]

Thanks for that Idiocracy post, Droplet. That movie is hilarious! Is the whole thing on youtube now? Wow. That's kinda surprising, if true.

I think there are some large mistaken ideas in this thread. In the world today, the poor and uneducated populations are the ones that have lots of kids. Everywhere on Earth that women have obtained a measure of education, money, and power, the birth rate has fallen dramatically. In much of the developed world, the birth rate has fallen below the replacement rate! When robust life extension comes around (if it hasn't already...) The kind of people who are likely to use it are the same ones that aren't reproducing enough anyway, so it looks like that isn't going to be a problem.

That is indeed an entire film, which brightened up Sunday evening. Very good points there.

Edited by Droplet, 15 May 2012 - 05:58 AM.

[mitomutant]

I voted. Pure egoism. I hope some side effect of this war can be a cure for my mtDNA mutation

[Droplet]

I voted. Pure egoism. I hope some side effect of this war can be a cure for my mtDNA mutation

Nothing wrong with voting to further your own interests, especially when it helps others too.

[Arcanyn]

Exactly. The more people concerned about their health, the better it is for everbody. It's amazing how blase most people are about that matter - few people think about their health 20, 30 years down the track. Perhaps if people did, they'd be a bit more receptive to the notion of curing aging.

[Droplet]

Exactly. The more people concerned about their health, the better it is for everbody. It's amazing how blase most people are about that matter - few people think about their health 20, 30 years down the track. Perhaps if people did, they'd be a bit more receptive to the notion of curing aging.

You are spot on there. I think that is tied in mostly to the "we can't cure it, it's inevitable so let's party to our demise" attitude. People don't want to think about it, as they know that without intervention, the "natural" thing is to degrade and eventually die in often painful circumstances. My family are right pains for not considering their future health and it drives me insane!

I have good friends who like getting drunk/stoned and whilst I don't do either myself I respect their decision. However at some point in our friendship came the inevitable questions as to why I abstain. I explain I see no point in damaging myself for a few minutes fun followed by side effects. They will say "we're gonna die anyway so enjoy it all." I have explained life extension etc. without preaching but they are not convinced and I respect their wish not to be concerned even if deep down I wish they were.

[brokenportal]

There are many ways to keep the discussion of indefinite life extension flowing with out trying to tell them that they should consider that it is good too. For example, I tell a lot of indefinite life extension related stories, and that opens up lots of opportunities for questions and related digressions.

As for this science debate vote here, keep spreading the word. The weight of support we can put behind this question could really end up making a nice impact here.

[Droplet]

. For example, I tell a lot of indefinite life extension related stories, and that opens up lots of opportunities for questions and related digressions.

Can't say I'd know any stories to tell personally.

[brokenportal]

Well, off the top of my head, there is the successful cryonics fundraiser, there is this war on aging vote that is surging in numbers, there is Aubreys appearances on History Channel, CNN, BBC, etc. There is the story about how a co founder of Facebook and Pay Pal has funded this cause. Sometimes I talk about movements with anecdotes to this cause. Steven Seagal talks about it, the Pope made an Easter day address about it. This cause makes a great add on anecdote to discussions about the meaning of life, etc. There are lots of detail stories in between.

[The Immortalist]

Well it appears that we have won.

Edited by The Immortalist, 21 May 2012 - 04:40 PM.

[Droplet]

Well it appears that we have won.

If true, that is the best news I could hear!